B Gem 23 Posted December 30, 2022 Question, is there a limited amount of extensions that can be asked for? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGunner 218 Posted December 30, 2022 20 minutes ago, xXxplosive said: Really....well that's your opinion.....show me where these requirements that you say "aren't really a high bar" are stated in the 2A of The Bill of Rights..........all this concocted crap is in violation of our 2A .......guess you feel it's not......suppose you love the insurance requirement also. IMO, your a prime example why we're in the shape we are here....Liberal Gun Owners....if you even own one.....omo. LOL. Nah, I don't have to prove anything to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grima Squeakersen 473 Posted December 30, 2022 ***DELETED*** 2 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xXxplosive 822 Posted December 30, 2022 I believe there are currently 25 states with permitless carry and this is what we have to deal with.....we need a new and clear understanding of just what is meant by our 2nd Amendment Right so everyone is on the same page and not second guessing any longer.....hopefully some court judge will finally get to that.......omo. 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Stu 1,884 Posted December 30, 2022 1 hour ago, B Gem said: Question, is there a limited amount of extensions that can be asked for? Extensions to what? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B Gem 23 Posted December 30, 2022 6 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said: Extensions to what? These cases that are against this new bill. How many extensions can the state ask for? Is there a set number before it must go to trail? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShootersShooter 120 Posted December 30, 2022 As this works it's way through the courts I continue to contact my state Senator & Assemblyman. Both voted against the new laws and I'm waiting for a reply to the most recent questions i sent the. Dear Senator Holzapfel, The recent passage of A4716 followed by S3214 solely on the strength of Democratic numbers in both houses of the legislature. Will the Republican members, all of whom voted against these bills, stand by without some ethics investigation of those supporters who knowingly and admittedly voted for an unconstitutional law? Where is the outcry about the malfeasance in office and disregard of their oath of office to uphold the U.S and State constitutions. Can the average citizen ever expect to see honorable representation again? Thank you for your support of those you represent, and for your consideration of this issue. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted December 30, 2022 2 hours ago, RadioGunner said: I really don't see a problem with Kavanaugh's comments. I think that in NJ and similar states that permitless carry is a pipe dream. Background checks and reasonable training aren't really a high bar. depends on who gets to define "reasonable training" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xXxplosive 822 Posted December 30, 2022 Training is not a reasonable requirement under the US Constitution....what's next, ya want to limit our speech to so many words per hour...1A. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGunner 218 Posted December 30, 2022 6 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said: depends on who gets to define "reasonable training" Objective standards are allowed under the bruen decision. I think it would be hard for example for them to make us qualify harder than retired cops (who are civilians), for example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted December 30, 2022 16 minutes ago, xXxplosive said: Training is not a reasonable requirement under the US Constitution....what's next, ya want to limit our speech to so many words per hour...1A. Actually, it could be. That’s the well regulated militia part. The American citizens are the militia and the well regulated was the training — at least the call up for training or action. Remember the minutemen . It’s in the historical context of Bruen . 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xXxplosive 822 Posted December 30, 2022 "Regulated" means alot of different things to a lot of people...."Muster" was regulated, has nothin' to do with training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted December 30, 2022 14 minutes ago, RadioGunner said: Objective standards are allowed under the bruen decision. I think it would be hard for example for them to make us qualify harder than retired cops (who are civilians), for example. Agreed, the retired cops in NJ qualify at the same standard as active in the RPO program. And it was twice a year at one point. It gets expensive. Once a year of carrying just on LEOSA ( federal law) It’s a pain to get sometimes to get that requal in. The places don’t always have a slot when it is convenient and it’s a ticking clock each year to get it done. I could see NJ or NY screwing with the requal to keep people from carrying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted December 30, 2022 4 minutes ago, xXxplosive said: "Regulated" means alot of different things to a lot of people...."Muster" was regulated, has nothin' to do with training. Yep. It would be another point of contention but we know where SCOTUS will go with on that issue. And frankly, a little bit of training protects us all. I could teach a revolver ( double action only) in less than an hour in my opinion. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xXxplosive 822 Posted December 30, 2022 25 permitless states require no training.....when are you guys here in NJ going to recognize what our US Constitution is really about and stop creating more obsticals for yourselves.......I can't believe some of this stuff.....your, your own worst enemies ....omo. 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,289 Posted December 30, 2022 8 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said: frankly, a little bit of training protects us all. I don't have to train to exercise my first Amendment rights, why should I have to train to exercise for the second? Training is great! I just don't agree with it being mandated! 7 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
COD 16 Posted December 30, 2022 Here's what NJ filed opposing the TRO: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.21.0.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike77 169 Posted December 30, 2022 18 minutes ago, COD said: Here's what NJ filed opposing the TRO: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.21.0.pdf I feel like it just repeats their "beliefs" not facts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted December 30, 2022 39 minutes ago, COD said: Here's what NJ filed opposing the TRO: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.21.0.pdf Basically “Fuck you, that’s why” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted December 30, 2022 2 hours ago, JohnnyB said: I don't have to train to exercise for my first Amendment rights, why should I have to train to exercise for the second? Training is great! I just don't agree with it being mandated! I was referring more to the permit. The parade permit to assemble in public . But it could be interpreted that “ well regulated” could include training. Even a call -up of the militia was often done for training — historical context is there. As someone said, I don’t think they can require more training than a police officer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xXxplosive 822 Posted December 30, 2022 I stated here beginning of the week...First paragraph..............Kavanaugh's fault, why some can't just shut their mouth.. 4 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said: I was referring more to the permit. The parade permit to assemble in public . But it could be interpreted that “ well regulated” could include training. Even a call -up of the militia was often done for training — historical context is there. and this is your argument to confound us here in NJ vs the 2A......are you kiddin' me....exactly what I meant, our own worst enemies....what's wrong with you. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,652 Posted December 30, 2022 4 minutes ago, voyager9 said: Basically “Fuck you, that’s why” Fuck them…because 2A… 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike77 169 Posted December 30, 2022 Am I reading it correctly, that the wording states a TRO can't be used unless the TRO is trying to stop a law to put ppl at harms way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted December 30, 2022 1 minute ago, Mike77 said: Am I reading it correctly, that the wording states a TRO can't be used unless the TRO is trying to stop a law to put ppl at harms way? Go look at the NY case. The judge threw out the original case for lack of standing because the plaintiffs didn’t say they were going to violate the law. They refilled with plaintiffs who stated they would. The law puts them in harm of being arrested for exercising their rights Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Stu 1,884 Posted December 30, 2022 NJ also says that a TRO is inappropriate because no-one can say whether they will actually arrest anyone for breaking these new restrictions because nobody has been arrested yet. Surely, if NJ has no intention of enforcing the new restrictions, why did they write them and why are they trying to prevent a TRO to block them? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike77 169 Posted December 30, 2022 Can anyone explain this line, without sarcasm? To me, it reads "you are ok running into Wawa with a gun" Places where the carrying of a firearm or destructive device is prohibited. a. Except as otherwise provided in this section and in the case of a brief, incidental entry onto property, which shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of N.J.S.2C:2-11 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,289 Posted December 30, 2022 2C:2-11. De minimis infractions The assignment judge may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct: a. Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense; b. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or c. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense. The assignment judge shall not dismiss a prosecution under this section without giving the prosecutor notice and an opportunity to be heard. The prosecutor shall have a right to appeal any such dismissal. L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:2-11, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike77 169 Posted December 30, 2022 9 minutes ago, JohnnyB said: 2C:2-11. De minimis infractions The assignment judge may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct: a. Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense; b. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or c. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense. The assignment judge shall not dismiss a prosecution under this section without giving the prosecutor notice and an opportunity to be heard. The prosecutor shall have a right to appeal any such dismissal. L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:2-11, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. So in other words, when carrying concealed, as you should.... You do not cause harm to others... I feel like that reads exactly what we do as ccw! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted December 30, 2022 4 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said: Actually, it could be. That’s the well regulated militia part. The American citizens are the militia and the well regulated was the training — at least the call up for training or action. Remember the minutemen . It’s in the historical context of Bruen . i think well regulated at the tmie meant to keep yer stuff in clean good working order. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted December 30, 2022 28 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said: i think well regulated at the tmie meant to keep yer stuff in clean good working order. It was also to train as a group. Remember how muskets were used on a battlefield. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites